Kahneman and Tversky's critique of Cohen's position on adults' probability reasoning is not valid. If they think Baconian logic is normatively unsound, the onus is on them to explain why. It is valid and useful because nature itself is full of causal processes. (Author/RD)

Cohen's (TM 504 890) formal rules of intuitive probability lack normative or descriptive appeal, and his interpretation of the author's findings is not compelling. (CP)

Literature on relational reasoning mainly focuses on the performance question. It is typically argued that problem difficulty relies on the number of ''mental models'' compatible with the problem. However, no study has ever investigated the wording of conclusions that participants formulate. In the present work, we analyze the relational terms…

Three experiments examined strategies for solving suppositional deductions to compare control structures proposed by rule theory and model theory. Puzzles were based on assertors who may be truth-tellers and their assertions about their truth-telling status. Reasoners made backward and forward inferences, found generating suppositions difficult,…

Protocols of people attempting to solve syllogistic problems and explaining how they reached their conclusions were examined. Two main groups of subjects were identified. One group represented the relationship between classes in a spatial manner supplemented by verbal representation. The other group used a primarily verbal representation. A…

Children and undergraduate students were studied to expose "structure-neutral" interpretations of logical propositions involving universal affirmatives. Successes with true and false questions and with four different syllogistic forms having three content types were compared. Age-related differences in performance were discussed with…

Until recently, norms of experimental reasoning have lacked systematic theoretical development. Thus, it has been easy for psychologists like Tversky and Kahneman to misclassify certain human reasoning processes as being Pascalian and invalid, rather than as being Baconian and valid. (CP)

Argues that the syntactic and mental model accounts of the suppression effect in deductive reasoning are inadequate. Proposes a relative salience model. Describes a test of predictions from this model in a suppression model, which obtained evidence of convergent validity for the salience construct. Results could not be reconciled with either the…